Chapter 3 Verses 18-22

TITLE:           So, What is the Answer, Anyway?

TEXT: 1 Peter 3:18-22

    For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: [19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; [20] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. [21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: [22] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

THEME:        The Gospel

PROP.:           We must understand the Gospel

INTER.:         What are the important elements of the Gospel?

[1]

INTRODUCTION:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: [19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; [20] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. [21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: [22] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

The Elements of the Gospel:

I           Innumeration  (18, 22)

A         Incarnation     -           “in the flesh.”

B         Substitution (vicarious atonement)   -           “suffered for sins, the just

                                                                                    for the unjust.”

C         Resurrection  -           “quickened by the Spirit.”

D         Ascension       -           “gone into heaven.”

II         Illustration (19-20)    

            A         A Patriarch     (19-20)

            B         A Picture         (21)

1 Peter 3:17–22 give a third reason for bearing unjust wrong. Such an experience may lie in the will of God for His child. In proof thereof, the writer has referred to the Cross where God’s beloved Son died. What follows in the remainder of the chapter, after verse 18 , is not understood easily. Ten orderly steps, however, may be traced through verses 19 to 22 . (1) The Spirit of Christ offered some the gift of salvation (“By which also he went and preached”); (2) It was proffered to spirits now in prison (“unto the spirits in prison”); (3) But they refused the effort of common grace (“Which sometime were disobedient”); (4) They despised the riches of divine goodness and forbearance and longsuffering (“when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah”); (5) But in contrast to their unbelief was the faith of Noah as he prepared for the threatened destruction (“while the ark was a preparing”); (6) Only eight souls chose to enter the ark and escape the predicted judgment (“wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water”); (7) Baptism is the antitype of Noah’s deliverance, consequently baptism has nothing to do with human reformation (“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh)”); (8) Salvation depends today upon the work of a good conscience, i.e. faith (“but the answer of a good conscience toward God”); (9) Saving faith is directed toward Jesus Christ and Him raised from the dead (“by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”); ( 10 ) Faith will embrace both the resurrection and glorification of Christ (“Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him”).

The transition from verse 18 to verse 19 looks abrupt at first. After mention of Calvary in the former verse, the writer has gone back in the latter to Noah’s day. Why would he do that? His reason may simply be this: the antediluvian generation was singled out by Christ in the presence of the author as very heedless ( Matt 24:37–39 ), as indifferent toward spiritual things as the generation prior to the return of Christ will be-hence a world perhaps as hostile as any generation of ungodly souls has been or will be. But even from such a mass the believer was delivered and vindicated. So “it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing” (verse 17 ). If the Lord could bless a suffering Noah, He can bless all those who bear unjust reproach.

Verses 19 and 20 conclude the long sentence begun in verse 18 . The nineteenth verse itself is appended to verse 18 as a relative clause expanding the word with which that part of the statement closed, Πνεύματι . Thus the emphasis on cooperation between Second and Third persons of the Godhead will continue into verse 19 . To combine the verses still more effectively Peter writes also . (Notice the very same conjunction at the head of verse 18 .) Not only did the Holy Spirit vivify the Son of God, but likewise He glorified God the Son by enabling Noah to become “a preacher of righteousness” ( 2 Pet 2:5 ), one whose testimony to “the world of the ungodly” took the tangible form of an ark or boat able to save from a flood judgment, comparable now to the Spirit’s baptism into Christ for salvation.

Careful study of 1 Peter 3:19 has led to the above interpretation, all down through the centuries. Indeed, “Augustine, Bede, Aquinas, Erasmus, Beza, Gerhard, Hottinger, Clericus, Leighton, Pearson, Seeker, Hammond, Hofmann, and most of the Reformed theologians, explain 1 Peter 3:18–20 to mean that Christ preached by Noah to men who were ‘disobedient’ in the days of Noah, and who for this cause were ‘spirits in prison’ at the time of Peter’s writing.” 1 Besides this view, manifestly conservative in nature, two other lines of exegesis have been maintained. Scofield weighs all three approaches only to decide unhesitatingly for the conservative one: ”(1) It is said that between Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection He went into Hades and offered salvation through His cross to all the wicked dead; (2) that He preached in Hades declaratively-merely announcing the consummation of the predicted sacrifice to those who had rejected the promises during Old Testament times. The objection to the first interpretation is that the context of the verse limits the preaching to a particular class of sinners-those antediluvians who rejected Noah’s gospel. Such favor to a special class of sinners who were warned for 120 years before the flood is inconceivable. The objection to the second interpretation is that it puts Christ in the position of, so to speak, taunting the irredeemably lost-which is also inconceivable. He might have wept over them; He could never have exulted over them; (3) the third interpretation harmonizes the passage, the context, and the known character of the Redeemer. It is best stated in paraphrase. ‘Christ...was quickened by the Spirit, by which Spirit in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, and the longsuffering of God waited, He preached to those who are now imprisoned spirits’ awaiting the judgment.” 2

3:19 describes the pre-incarnate activity of Christ thus: “By which Spirit He went and preached.” In similar language 1:11 had already referred to Old Testament prophets as men who foresaw a Messianic salvation, because “the Spirit of Christ was in them.” The Third Person in the Godhead is called the Spirit of Christ there, while the Second Person here is credited with the action directly. This new and unusual stress will agree with the present context, where Peter desires to exalt Christ the sufferer for the encouragement of others in like case. Paul taught similar doctrine concerning the relationship of Second and Third Members in the Godhead. To quote Shedd, “Christ’s preaching through Noah-’a preacher of righteousness’ ( 2 Pet 2:5 ), and therefore an ‘ambassador of Christ’ ( 2 Cor 5:20 )-might be done through His divinity alone. See Ephesians 4:20 , 21 ; Acts 26:23 ; John 10:16 , for instances in which Christ’s preaching by others is called His preaching. It is objected that the phrase, He ‘went and preached’ ( πορευθεὶς ), in 1 Peter 3:19 , would not apply to a preaching that was instrumental and spiritual. But the same use is found in Ephesians 2:17 , [18]. Christ ‘came and preached ( ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο ) to you which were afar off.’ The reference is to Christ’s preaching to the Gentile world by His apostles. Christ, in His own person, did not preach to them which were ‘afar off’; and He forbade His disciples to do so until the time appointed by the Father, Matthew 10:5 ; Acts 1:4 .” 3

Finally, 1 Peter 3:19 specifies the object of our Lord’s antediluvian ministry: “the spirits in prison.” Not until the next verse, however, are the recipients identified fully. Verse 20 will follow after the nineteenth verse much as verse 19 itself was joined with the preceding, i.e. by way of further definition. The Greek construction now changes from a relative clause to use of a restrictive participle-“that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,” etc. (R.V.). 4 Whereas verse 19 will describe the audience in terms appropriate to their present condition, verse 20 , no doubt, has depicted their situation at the time when Christ and His Spirit in Noah ministered to them. Accordingly, the language of verse 19 describes those in a disembodied state. “See Hebrews 12:23 for the use of pneumata for disembodied spirits.” 5 Earlier in the present passage ( 1 Pet 3:19 ), of course, Pneuma signified the Holy Spirit. What helps to determine a new meaning for the term when used by verse 20 , is the qualifying phrase, “in prison.” Peter must be thinking here of such as are “kept shut up ( Jude 6 ; 2 Pet 2:4 ) in the place of the departed awaiting the final judgment: in Sheol, as the Syriac has it.” 6 Prison , then, would be employed metaphorically; cf. Revelation 20:7 .

The first word of 1 Peter 3:20 sums up the verdict passed by God upon the antediluvians-disobedient. Compare 2:8 and 3:1 for earlier use of the same Greek word. This term for disobedience is composed of alpha privative and the root from which comes the well-known word believe . 7 As the context will suggest, therefore, saving faith was lacking in Noah’s generation. Theologically speaking, they resisted common grace. “The entire work of the Holy Spirit on behalf of the unsaved world is sometimes given the terminology common grace , including in its scope the restraining work of the Holy Spirit in addition to the work of revealing the Gospel.” 8 Significant passages on the unbelief prevailing throughout the world appear in Romans 2:4ff ; 5:19 ; 10:16 ; 16:25 , 26 ; 2 Thessalonians 1:6ff ; Hebrews 5:9 .

The second word in 1 Peter 3:20 is an adverb, aforetime (R.V.). Precisely what point of time may be meant, the author has indicated by the temporal clause following: “when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah.” Waited represents a vivid use of the Greek imperfect tense known as the progressive imperfect of description. 9 A double compound, ἀπεξεδέχετο may have been coined by Paul, though Nägeli ( Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus ) finds it also in the apocryphal Acta Pauli and other late writings. 10  Elsewhere in the New Testament, and it occurs another seven times, the term will denote the earnest waiting for Christ to return which should characterize believers. Divine longsuffering is mentioned again in 2 Peter ( 3:9 , 15 ), as well as in Luke 18:7 ; Romans 2:4 ; 9:22 ; 1 Timothy 1:16 . See Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament , §liii, on this important word denoting forbearance.

There follows in 1 Peter 3:20 a construction designated the genitive absolute, “while the ark was a preparing.” 11 This would suggest how long the forbearance of God delayed judgment. Apparently a whole century and more intervened while Noah built his ark, according to Genesis 5:32 ; 6:3 ; 7:6 . 1 Peter 3:20 , then, will close with solemn allusion to the few who were spared the catastrophe. As in the English idiom, ψυχαί may stand for persons of both sexes ( Acts 2:41 ; 27:37 , etc.). Hart clarifies the three final words in the verse with his comments: ” διεσώθησαν δι ̓ ὕδατος , were brought safe through water . Both local and instrumental meanings of διά are contemplated. The former is an obvious summary of the whole narrative; cf. also διὰ τὸ ὕδωρ (Gen. vii. 7 ). The latter is implied in the statement that the water increased and lifted up the ark ( ib . 17 f.); though it fits better the antitype. So Josephus (Ant. I., iii. 2) says that ‘the ark was strong so that from no side was it worsted by the violence of the water and Noah with his household διασώζεται ’. Peter lays stress on the water (rather than the ark as e.g., Heb. xi .) for the sake of the parallel with Baptism.... cf. St. Paul’s application of the Passage of the Red Sea, 1 Cor. x. 1 f.).” 12

1 Peter 3:21 reveals the significance of baptism. As noticed earlier, Peter is commenting upon persecution and using for his third argument in favor of endurance, unjust though the matter be, the fact that such experiences may lie in the will of God for His people (verses 17–22 ). Even Christ, the beloved Son of God, passed through sore trials when following Heaven’s will. From mentioning Christ and His death the apostle proceeded to evidence of the success achieved by Calvary. Noah and his generation are made a case in point, after which the writer is ready to confront his fellow believers again. There seems to be no difficulty in making the transition from Noah to thoughts of baptism, since verse 21 will affirm: ”...which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (A.S.V.). Observe how full a comparison has been drawn between the Flood and baptism:

Verse 21 is joined with the thought preceding as a clause explanatory of water , the term with which verse 20 closed. 1 The flood that destroyed all mankind was, in a certain sense, responsible for Noah’s being spared judgment. It floated his ark instead of overwhelming the craft. Similarly the water of baptism, although it speaks symbolically of death in union with Christ, will at the same time witness to co-resurrection with the Savior. Both death and life figure in the same incident ( Acts 2:38 ), again. Καὶ is written after ὅ , just as the relative clause at verse 19 was reinforced and linked with what came before (cf. A.S.V.). The Authorized Version, less naturally, would bind the conjunction with baptism , subject of the sentence.

Ἀντίτυπον is used twice by the New Testament. A late compound, the apostles employ it diversely. In Hebrews 9:24 it will clarify the relationship between Moses’ tabernacle and the heavenly counterpart of which it formed a mere copy, the former being designated “antitype.” Conversely, here the writer makes baptism the “antitype,” of which the Deluge was a foreshadowing. Modern Greek has the term signifying a copy of a book (Robertson).

“Baptism saves” is the categorical statement of verse 21 . Nowhere else does the New Testament employ a forthright expression like this (notice the present tense, active voice, indicative mood of the verb, since the term save has not been written thus again). But Peter’s other references to salvation will round out what is being affirmed here. Viewing 3:21 in the light of the whole epistle, the student may summarize everything like this:

The Father saves (through His word), 1:23–2:2

The Son saves (through His work), 1:8–12

The Spirit saves (through baptism), 3:19–21

Faith saves (the subjective side), 1:3–5

The gospel saves (the objective side), 4:17 , 18

The last passage given above ( 4:18 ) happens to be the one remaining allusion where the verb save will appear in 1 Peter. 3:20 had the solitary occurrence of the compound formed by prefixing διά .

When indicating that baptism must be connected with the Spirit here in 3:21 , it was not our purpose to link the explanation to Holy Spirit baptism altogether. 2 Baptism by water, although not a saving ordinance ( 1 Cor 1:14–17 ; Eph 2:8–10 ), no doubt looms before the reader now. Why? First, because the Flood has for its antitvpe baptism. Second, because the clarification of baptism teaching will follow as verse 21 continues, itself explaining what was meant by the phrase “baptism saves”: ”(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God).” Not reformation of the flesh, but the affirmation of faith can save a soul, such as may be found with the rite of baptizing.

Then, how does the Spirit of God figure at all in verse 21 ? His work may be implied because of the present tense in the verb save . Were the reference solely to public acceptance of believers into a congregation, the aorist tense would be demanded. But now a process of sanctification and witnessing is to be understood, just as Peter has intimated by earlier references to the ministry of the Holy Spirit ( 1:2 , 12 ). Such fruition was suggested by the context here, for the apostle has been mentioning Noah as a man of God who gave forth the divine message (verses 19 , 20 ). Furthermore, “a good conscience” is hardly the product of unaided human effort, but rather the fruitage secured by a “good manner of life in Christ,” verse 16 , A.S.V. Compare Galatians 5:16ff . And finally, baptism is associated in the present passage with not only water, but also the resurrection of Christ, which combination brings to mind the co-rising experienced by the believer-a spiritual reality that the Spirit will teach God’s child to effect deliverance from the power of sin ( Rom 6–8 ).

In a word, 1 Peter 3:21 by means of one inclusive statement unites water and Spirit baptism together, a union truly ideal. Holy Spirit baptism, of course, is a factor in positional truth, not in experimental. The present tense of save , therefore, might seem as inexplicable on this score as for water baptism. But not so. Much is made of the former by Pauline theology, since all positional truth has an important bearing on daily life. So βάπτισμα (the sole mention of baptism in 1 Peter) will gain the pregnant sense of heavenly position in the Body of Christ together with its attendant earthly outworking. Compare Philippians 2:12 , 13 .

Baptisma and baptismos , the two New Testament words for baptism, are discussed by Trench in his volume of Synonyms . A summary of his findings will profit the student. Both baptismos and baptisma are ecclesiastical terms exclusively, neither appearing in the Septuagint. They stem alike from baptizein (a later form of baptein ), a term rare in classical Greek but frequent in later writers like Plutarch. It seldom happens that a word root occurs in the New Testament with both mos and ma terminations. The former suffix is preferred. But there arises no difficulty of assigning each word formation the sense which properly belongs to it when both endings are used, “and this, even while we must own that in actual use the words are very far from abiding true to their proper significance, those with the active termination in mos continually obtaining a passive signification, as is the case...in the New Testament with ἁγιασμός and others; while the converse, if not quite so common, is yet of very frequent occurrence.” In the present comparison, then, baptismos means the act of baptizing contemplated not only as doing, but as done, a baptism, while baptisma is not any more the act, but the abiding fact resulting therefrom, baptism as an institution or doctrine. This latter designation, accordingly, seems the fittest word to employ for the significance of baptism. And New Testament usage confirms our opinion. In apostolic Scriptures we must understand by baptismos any “ceremonial washing” such as God ordained ( Heb 9:10 ) or man proposed himself ( Mark 7:4 ), but by baptisma we understand baptism in the Christian sense of the word ( Rom 6:4 , Eph 4:5 ), yet not so strictly as to exclude Johannine practice ( Luke 7:29 ). This distinction was preserved by the Greek ecclesiastical authors in the main, if not by the Latin fathers.

Hebrews 6:2 , third and final use of baptismos in the New Testament, will allow the same nicety of word distinction that other portions do. All explanations of this verse which rest on the assumption that Christian baptism is intended, really break down before this fact, not to urge the plural “baptisms” which, had the one baptism of the Church been intended, would be inexplicable. Taking “baptisms” in its widest sense, “we can understand a ‘doctrine of baptisms’ such as should teach the young convert the definitive abolition of the Jewish ceremonial lustrations, the merely preparatory and provisional character of the baptism of John, and the eternal validity of the baptism of Christ. We can understand too how all should be gathered up under the one name of baptismoi , being that they were all washings; and this without in the least allowing that any other save baptisma was the proper title of that ‘washing of regeneration’ which is the exclusive privilege of the Church of Christ.”

Baptisma , ecclesiastical word that it is, need not mean immersion, as in secular Greek its background would suggest, although it well may. Instead, here is a ceremonial word for purification, quite in agreement with diversified Old Testament rites of cleansing. Alford does well to comment on the word as it appears in 1 Peter, then: “Baptism saves, not the water of baptism: the parenthesis following is a kind of protest against such a rendering.” Faith has more to do with salvation than has any form of baptism. Writing for Bibliotheca Sacra in 1896 on The Archaeology of the Mode of Baptism , Warfield agrees with the historian Wall that “There never was a time when the Church insisted upon immersion as the only valid mode of baptism.” Warfield’s own conclusion based upon archaeological research was this: “Our archaeological inquiry as to the mode of Christian baptism leaves us hanging, then, in the middle of the second century. What Christian baptism was like at that point of time we can form a tolerably clear notion of. It was a cleansing bath, usually performed by a form of trine immersion...we appear to be forbidden to assume that second century baptism any more certainly reproduces for us primitive Christian baptism, than the second century eucharist reproduces for us the primitive Lord’s Supper or the second century church organization the primitive bishop-presbyter. Where, then, it may be asked, are we to go for knowledge of really primitive baptism? If the archaeology of the rite supplies ground for no very safe inference, where can we obtain satisfactory guidance? Apparently only from the New Testament itself.”

How can baptism exert saving power? 1 Peter 3:21 presents both positive and negative statements relative to its function in salvation. Negatively, it is affirmed that baptism and self-reformation are not akin. Ἀπόθεσις , an old word in the language, appears but twice throughout the New Testament, both times in Peter, 2 Peter 1:14 will refer to the apostle’s divesting himself of the body in death. And here may be seen the kindred thought of removing the defilement of the Adamic nature through determination to reform. The cognate verb occurs nine times in the New Testament, including one time with Peter ( 1 Pet 2:1 ). Filth , an old word for dirt and defilement, never comes again in the apostolic Scriptures, though cognate words do ( Jas 1:21 ; 2:2 ; Rev 22:11 ). Flesh , however, is a term to be repeated several times by the writer, along with a cognate adjective once. According to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, this doctrinal word has a threefold signification in the New Testament, hinging upon reference to the materiality of the human body ( 1 Pet 3:18 ; 4:6 ), its humanity or creaturehood ( 1:24 , 4:1 , 2 ), or its depravity ( 2:11 ; 3:21 -the present allusion). 3 All three nouns in the negative declaration of Peter’s are written without the article, as indeed are the nouns throughout the verse. This makes the phraseology as general as possible, with no exception allowed.

Positively, baptism will possess saving value when become “the interrogation of a good conscience toward God” (A.S.V.). A word from ancient Greek, ἐπερώτημα will be found here in the New Testament only. Ancient writers never used it for “answer” (A.V.), but only for “inquiry”; also, inscriptions from the age of the Antonines, two emperors of Rome from 138–180 A.D., use it for the Senate’s approval after inquiry (Robertson). What may aid the most in this piece of linguistic research, however, is study of the cognate verb and its root. The former occupies a prominent place in the apostolic Word, especially in the Synoptics. Trench has made a comparison between the basic root and one of its synonyms, yet without success. Among those unconvinced by Trench, Cremer may offer the most lucid study of the words involved. Thayer quotes the latter as maintaining: ” αἰτέω denotes the request of the will, ἐπιθυμέω that of the sensibilities, δέομαι the asking of need, while ἐρωτάω marks the form of the request, as does εὔχεσθαι also, which in classic Greek is the proper expression for a request directed to the gods and embodying itself in prayer.” 4 Among the synonyms for asking, therefore, the very one best suited for inquiring of God was chosen by Peter. Euchesthai or any of the other terms would have lent a slightly different emphasis from the one appropriate to this context, where the apostle desired to stress mere interrogation, howbeit a reverent approach in questioning. Examples from the ranks of the early Church of those who once had asked how to gain a good conscience before God and to be saved, are not far to seek. Peter himself listened to thousands of people on the first day of the Church’s history making the inquiry, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” To which Peter replied: “Repent, and be baptized,” etc. ( Acts 2:37ff ; cf. 8:35ff ; 16:30ff ).

The expression “good conscience” is carried over from verse 16 above. Only thrice besides will the two words stand together in the New Testament. Each time Paul has uttered them ( Acts 23:1 , 1 Tim 1:5 , 19 ; cf. Heb 13:18 ). Among these passages just 1 Timothy 1:19 would link good consciences with faith. And indeed, these two realities do belong together, faith seemingly the cause and a pure conscience the result or effect thereof. When the latter was marred, Hymenaeus and Alexander quickly came to a bad end as to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. So the Revision suggests by its accurate translation of 1 Timothy: ”...which [conscience] some having thrust from them made shipwreck concerning the faith: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander” (verses 19 , 20 ). Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has elucidated the Bible teaching on conscience recently. 5 His dictum on the phrase “good conscience” expresses the matter simply: “This aspect of conscience relates to or reflects the state of the believer’s heart. A good conscience is free from self-condemnation.” Lexicons will distinguish easily between the two words for good to be employed ( Heb 13:18 has καλός , the other passages have ἀγαθός .). The first properly refers to goodliness as manifested in outward form and conduct, the second to inner excellence. Hence the second is more basic and essential, something which cannot be counterfeited.

Lenski has shown the way to account for the particular word order followed here. By contrasting the negative and positive statements with the balance due them, it may be learned that “putting off” and “interrogation” are both nouns of action (though the latter has the ma suffix)-a contrast between faith and works. “Flesh” is opposed to “good conscience,” as maladjustment and adjustment to God’s will. And finally, “filth” and “toward God” counterbalance because they indicate opposite goals in life, the one content with cleansing the outside of the cup and platter and the other thoroughgoing. Less naturally, Abbott would join “toward God” with “save,” written earlier in the verse. No other Scripture, however, will use a prepositional phrase of this nature after the word interrogation . 6 Both “filth” and “conscience” parallel one another as the use of an objective genitive.

The Authorized Version has indicated the connection of the final words in verse 21 , when it brackets the matter explanatory of baptism. That is to say, the phrase “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” is to be joined with the main verb, “save,” though sundered from it by a parenthesis. Now the divine part in baptism will come to the fore, here and throughout verse 22 , as the bracketed material previously expounded the human side. To understand Heaven’s part it will be necessary to examine the nature of Spirit baptism. The last number of Bibliotheca Sacra offers a satisfactory definition: “It is that divine operation of God’s Spirit which places the believer ‘in Christ,’ in His mystical Body, the Church, and which makes him one with all other believers in Christ, one in life, the very life of the Son of God Himself, one in Him, a common Head, one in sharing His common salvation, hope and destiny.” 7 This aspect to baptism, consequently, entails (1) membership in the mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the New Creation of which Christ is the Head by virtue of resurrection wherein He became “the firstfruits of them that are asleep” in death-believers ( 1 Cor 15:20 , A.S.V.) and “the true vine” of which living Christians are “the branches” ( John 15:1ff ); (2) partnership with all other believers in a common salvation, hope and destiny, all of which standing the Holy Spirit made possible by translating us out of the old, Adamic creation into the New, when He united us to Christ in His death and resurrection. What importance must be attached, therefore, to Christ’s rising from the dead! The Church, as the New Creation, is based on His resurrection. Wise, discerning words from Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer ought to receive attention here. “Next to salvation truth, it is vitally important for the believer to know the Bible doctrine of the Church. Following the eclipse of nearly all truth in the Dark Ages, it was given to Martin Luther in the sixteenth century to reinstate the doctrine of salvation through faith alone, and, in the last century, it was given to J. N. Darby of England to reinstate the doctrine of the Church. Protestant theology has concerned itself largely with salvation truth to the neglect of the doctrine of the Church.” 8

Peter has less to say about the resurrection of Christ than the cross. Only once besides does he dilate especially on the former. Regeneration was being considered there ( 1:3 ), as the larger subject of salvation here. In an epistle aimed at bracing sufferers, the example of the great Sufferer could be expected to figure more prominently than anything else, even than the resurrection. It is quite different with Peter’s testimony recorded by Acts, when the Church was being inaugurated. Concerning this, Griffith Thomas shows: “It is now admitted on all hands that the church of Christ came into existence as the result of a belief in the resurrection of Christ. When we consider its commencement, as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, we see two simple and incontrovertible facts: (1) the Christian society was gathered together by preaching; (2) the substance of the preaching was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross, and would therefore be rejected by Jews as accursed of God ( Deut 21:23 ). Yet multitudes of Jews were led to worship Him ( Acts 2:41 ), and a great company of priests to obey Him ( Acts 6:7 ). The only explanation of these facts is God’s act of resurrection ( Acts 2:36 ), for nothing short of it could have led to the Jewish acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. The apostolic church is thus a result of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 9

1:3 and 3:21 express the doctrine of resurrection in the same way, except that the former passage has added the phrase, “from the dead.” The conjunction being used is διά , a word for intermediate, not direct, agency. Compare parallel verses like John 3:17 ; Acts 15:11 ; Romans 5:9 . There could hardly be a parallel in 1 Corinthians 3:15 ; 15:2 ; 1 Timothy 2:15 . Thus would the apostle intimate how God the Father is author of salvation ( 1 Pet 1:3 ), God the Son its mediator ( 2:4ff ). It may be significant, too, that the One resurrected is called “Jesus Christ,” not simply “Christ” as at verse 18 above, where the Cross was introduced. The human name of Jesus, linked with the official title of Christ, suggests that the Incarnation continues on without interruption, even through the crisis of death. “This same Jesus” was raised from the dead Whom they had nailed to a cross. When the human name of Saviorhood, Jesus, is placed first in combination with Christ, emphasis will be given the humanity of our Lord, something natural enough in speaking about resurrection. For the same combination of Jesus Christ see 1:1–3 , 7 , 13 ; 2:5 ; 4:11 . Just once does Peter vary from the phraseology of Jesus Christ ( 1:3 ), when employing the name Jesus. 1 Peter never uses the latter by itself.

What of the resurrected Savior? 1 Peter 3:22 will proceed to tell exactly where He is to be found and why. This note of glorification fitly marks the climax in the present argument for enduring trial. The outcome of our Lord’s suffering justified it altogether. Where, then, is the great Sufferer? Now He “is on the right hand of God,” exaltation than which there could be nothing higher. Seemingly, this language has been borrowed from the Davidic psalm so often cited in the New Testament, Psalm 110 . How terse and meaningful it is! Compare Romans 8:34 for similar use of Psalm 110:1 .

There are clear enough instances where Psalm 110 has been quoted by the New Testament to make it the most used portion of the Jewish Scriptures, though only a few verses long itself (Perowne). Psalm 110:1 became a facile weapon in the hands of Christ when the Pharisees were to be silenced ( Matt 22:41ff and Synoptic parallels). Likewise, Peter has employed this prophetic verse himself and as early in his ministry as Pentecost ( Acts 2:33–35 ). Finally, the author of Hebrews found extensive use for the Psalm, at 1:13 looking back directly to verse 1 . Besides these five definite allusions there may be another ten or so more, that prominently does the Session at the right hand of God figure in the apostolic Word-if mentioned but here by 1 Peter. When all the New Testament references are assembled, whether very clear or not, the many implications of what Peter has touched on briefly may be learned. A tabular analysis follows:

Ascending to heaven, prelude to the Session ( Mark 16:19 )

Ranking above angels, result thereof ( Heb 1:13 )

Ascribing of deity, inference therefrom ( Matt 22:44 )

Securing of redemption, necessity before ( Heb 1:3 )

Sending the Holy Spirit, gift contingent thereon ( Acts 2:33 )

Bestowing salvation, power contingent thereon ( Acts 5:31 )

Heading the Church, authority contingent thereon ( 1 Pet 3:22 )

Undergirding the Church, responsibility contingent ( Col 3:1 )

Praying for the Church, ministry contingent thereon ( Rom 8:34 )

Helping the Church, priesthood contingent thereon ( Heb 8:1 )

Encouraging the Church, leadership contingent ( Heb 12:2 )

Perfecting the Church, success crowned thereby ( Heb 10:12–14 )

Nerving the Church, feat contingent thereon ( Acts 7:55 , 56 )

Subduing the world, task contingent thereon ( 1 Cor 15:24 , 25 )

Overcoming the world, victory crowned thereby ( Rev 3:21 )

Receiving the supremacy, grandeur contingent ( Eph 1:20 )

Returning to reign, event assured thereby ( Matt 26:64 )

The Session, therefore, has a detailed bearing on the Person and work of Christ. Its sweep extends from testimony about the ascension to ascription of deity, from testimony about redemption on to glorification of the Church and subjugation of the world.

With the help of the parallel verse in Colossians ( 3:1 ), a student will perceive that a substantival participle is necessary here to fill out the thought. Christ is One seated upon the right hand of God. Psalm 110:1 with its command to assume this seat, to be sure, is a pregnant construction for “Sit enthroned”; compare Psalm 2:4 (Briggs). The seat at the right hand (LXX uses the more idiomatic preposition ek and not en ) in Scripture represents the place of highest honor ( Ps 45:10 , Hebrew; 1 Kings 2:19 ; Matt 20:21 ). Beyond any question, however, more than bare honor is implied here. No doubt the idea corresponds to recognition of Christ as God the Son ( Ps 2:7 ). All local association may be excluded from the mention of the right hand, and the thought refer to dignity, not place. In our present state we are forced to think in terms of space, Westcott observes, but it does not follow that this limitation belongs to resurrected beings.

Why is Christ found on the throne of God? Because He has “gone into heaven,” verse 22 proceeds to reveal, nothing being able to prevent His rising to the highest glory-“angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him.” Robertson has discerned the true course of thought when he refused to make πορευθεὶς part of a periphrastic construction. Notice the same form above in verse 19 . In His pre-incarnate state, through the Holy Spirit Christ went to the antediluvians with Noah for His messenger of deliverance. Now in His incarnate state He has journeyed into heaven itself, following death and resurrection.

The spirits made subject to Christ on high are called angels, authorities and powers. Made subject , a verb frequent in 1 Peter (see 2:13 , 18 ; 3:1 , 5 ; 5:5 ), need not intimate that these spirits yielded voluntary obedience, as it did elsewhere in the epistle, but in the present context more of the original military connotation may reappear. Itself a compound verb, it can signify to place under authority, put in subjection, being the very term used by the Septuagint for Psalm 8:7 , Hebrew (cf. 1 Cor 15:26 , 27 , where the thought of crushing hostility will occur with the word in elucidating the prediction found at Ps 8:7 ). As for the three categories which Peter lists, they are not all that the New Testament has disclosed relative to the spirit world. Of all the categories Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has said: “Revelation specifies certain groups as well as various important individuals among the angels. Mention has been made of five major representations of supremacy among these beings, namely, Thrones ( THronoi ), dominions ( Kurioteetes ), Principalities ( Archai ), Authorities ( Exousiai ), and Powers ( Dunameis ). Since the Bible does not indulge in useless tautology, it may be believed that there is a specific meaning to each of these denominations, which meaning no doubt corresponds to earthly realities which bear these appellations. The revealed truth regarding the angels is not sufficiently complete for a full analogy to be set up. The term Thrones refers to those who sit upon them; Dominions to those who rule; Principalities to those who govern; Powers to those who exercise supremacy; and Authorities to those invested with empirical responsibility. Though there is seeming similarity in these denominations, it may be assumed that representation is made by these titles to incomprehensible dignity and varying degrees of rank. Heavenly spheres of rule exceed human empires as the universe exceeds the earth.” 10

The vista of Biblical angelology, suggestive if more limited than anthropology, is thus opened to the gaze of a believer. But space forbids the digression and amplification which Peter has invited. Perhaps enough has already been given to show how broad is the scope of Petrine theology, even though his be not the extended system which Paul has to offer through inspiration.

----

[1]Schwandt, John ; Collins, C. John: The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament. Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2006; 2006, S. 1 Pe 3:18-22

1 1. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology , Vol. II, p. 609. Cf. Robertson, Word Pictures , in loc ., according to which a number of modern scholars follow Griesbach and his conjecture that the original text read “Noah also,” or “Enoch also,” or perhaps “in which Enoch also.” But the emendation, significantly enough, lacks any support from the manuscripts.

2 2. Dr. C. I. Scofield’s Question Box , edited by Ella E. Pohle, pp. 99, 100.

3 3. Op. cit ., p. 610.

4 4. Dana and Mantey, Grammar of the Greek New Testament , p. 225.

5 5. Robertson, op. cit ., in loc .

6 6. Alford, Greek Testament , in loc .

7 7. See a brief yet helpful section on word-formation in Chamberlain’s Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament , Macmillan, 1941, pp. 9-19.

8 8. This is the first sentence in an exposition of common grace to be found in Dr. Walvoord’s book, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit , pp. 119-128.

9 9. “The imperfect is used to denote action in progress in past time. This is manifestly the most characteristic use of the tense.... The process may be vividly represented as actually going on in past time” (Dana and Mantey, op. cit ., p. 187).

10 10. Robertson, op. cit ., in loc .

11 11. Dana and Mantey, op. cit ., p. 80.

12 12. Expositor’s Greek Testament , in loc .

1 1. Alford points out that the water to which verse 21 will refer is not the cataclysm of Noah’s day, but water generally, the common factor between the type and its fulfilment. In consequence the last word in verse 20 is anarthrous, simply water , rather than a definite allusion to the flood waters as such.

2 2. For an illuminating study of this phase of the doctrine, see Walvoord, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit , pp. 152-167.

3 3. Bibliotheca Sacra , Vol. 101, April-June, 1944, p. 132ff.

4 4. Greek Lexicon , p. 18.

5 5. Bibliotheca Sacra , Vol. 101, April-June, 1944, pp. 145-148.

6 6. Thrice before, Peter has written the expressive phrase, eis THeon - 1:21 (twice); 3:5 . Observe its anarthrous character in every case. But each instance varies from the other in its manner of introducing the phrase. An adjective, infinitive, participle, and noun govern the combination.

7 7. Vol. 101, April-June, 1944, p. 232.

8 8. Major Bible Themes , p. 204.

9 9. International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia , s.v ., “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Vol. IV, p. 2565.

10 10. Bibliotheca Sacra , Vol. 98, October-December, 1941, pp. 406,407.